- 1 –
The revolutionary idea must not prevail through violence
The regime of president Ali Abdullah Saleh didn't realize that the so-called "victory" which was achieved in 1994 war, was the beginning of his end, just as it was a defeat to the peaceful voluntary unification.
Many of the victories of modern and old nation's wars, were turning points towards the final defeat in the course of the victorious.
Unless revolutions are controlled by values which distinguish them from their opponent which they rebelled against, its vigor may lead it to its same violent path, using the same tools of the opponent, including the culture and discourse.
Wars inflate persons on the expense of the "idea" they fought for or claim fighting for. The vision gets smaller and even vanishes and the personality swells. Often the idea vanishes by changing its essence, in particular the major ideas. Such ideas contradict in terms of moral content with wars. Wars are not considered appropriate tools to achieve it, whatever the justifications and reasons are. The major idea with human aspects if it lacks the skills of persuasion from within it and with its own tools, then its imposition through military forces will be governed by problematic consequences. They are problems rooted in the structure of the general status that is generated by the wars which lead it towards turmoil and instability.
The major problems among these is the ambiguity which effects the central figure in the war or what is known as a leader or commander which we expressed as figure inflation on the expense of the idea. This ambiguity is not just a conscience case that predominates a person and re-figures him in due course of the mood of a new surrounding environment, but it is an expression of fundamental changes in an atmosphere generated by the war. The atmosphere consists of the spaces that guns, bullets whiz, dead bodies, destruction images are filling its spaces within both the awareness and in the entity as well.
The matter doesn't seem as a marginal product in its appearance that is embodied by war results in the tragic abstract and physical images, However its perspectives must be read as life events' outcome which forms deep antonyms such as victory and defeat, revenge and tolerance, submissiveness and revolution, radicalism and moderation, construction and destruction.. and so on.
What applies to individuals and countries, is also true for the popular movements, revolutions, and the associated social processes. Unless these are controlled by the values which distinguish them from the opponent that they arose against, its vigor may lead it to the same path of violence and usage of the opponent's tools, including his culture and speech. The violence tools by nature don't differ from one another, they are naturally repulsive and who resort to them are structured in accordance with their characteristics which are often brutal, and filled with huge stupidity, which becomes difficult for those who suffer it to break away from its chaotic circle which is created by violence and digs out of them the worst forms of human behaviors which are not eligible for anything other than sabotage and missing the opportunities.
Instead of acquiring new revolutionary values form the new situation, some forces, have adopted the values of old miserable disputes with their wretched effects that start to reproduced itself in the new images of conflict, intolerance plaguing the revolutionary track with deceptions that are hidden behind political isolated Camouflages, and old-fashioned fanatical ideologies.
What is disastrous is that the revolutionary mood is naturally, packed with violent elements which makes it eligible and inclined to practice it, unless the political and cultural medium of the revolution managed to form strong value control set of systems in the revolutionary action field, and among its grass roots on a high level of confidence and understanding between the parties of this process so as to prevent adventure in its different forms and to stop the tendencies of individuality and revenge.
the revolutionary field is often capable of creating more than a leader, and because these leaders are made in a hurry, in accordance with the need of the revolutionary moment, many of the leaders which are created often get the diseases of being identical with the opponent whom they rose up against, particularly those who believe that the revolution is the course for eliminating a certain social status.
The creation of leaders in a hurry is the greatest danger that faces the revolutions where bills that revolution must pay, become huge to the degree of exhaustion. Therefore the most important result of bills' burdens is that which puts the revolution between the hammer and anvil of the options of going ahead for the eradication of the values of regime which corrupted the community and build the alternative revolutionary system, or carry on for producing such values and traditions in the worst image that any revolution will end into when it loses its controls in certain stations along its track.
In many of the historical experiences , we have seen the outcome of the Arab revolutions in their old versions, ending tragically by falling into the trap of identical situations of the regimes which they revolted against, to the extent that they often become indistinguishable copies of them. We cannot attribute this matter to chance, we would rather search for their roots in the nature of the powers which undertook the revolution since the beginning and the tools they used. These powers, and what they ended up into, were naturally of superior origins which didn't allow for the formation of the political culture of the community away from their control and intervention as well as the besieging the revolutionary track with lists of prohibitions, diversities and red lines.
The goals of these lists were to protect the ruling elites from counter revolutions.
These elites have protected themselves from the prospects of re-producing the revolution through their control of political life with suppressive instruments, however they failed in protecting itself from creating the sole leader and the conflicts and liquidations that accompanied it.
The creation of the sole leader had been on the expense of the revolution, from within or outside it, is the predominant feature of revolutions. The revolution which fell into the grip of the leader, should be restructured in the awareness, assuming that it does not look like the real revolutions and that some defect must have made it vulnerable to such extortion.
It is notable that the violence and wars have interfered in certain points to cripple what is left of the revolutionary elements so as to open the way for opportunists and corrupts who access to the decision making positions and then, complete their power control by filling up the revolutionary spaces with anti-revolutionary values.
The revolutionary concepts should not be forcibly imposed, unless they are faced with war and violence from resisting forces.
What is meant here is that the revolutionary concept shouldn't prevail by violence and aggression, because it may prevail for a certain period and then relapse, due to the fast disintegration of the revolutionary forces within the (violent) atmosphere where an expelling culture for values of freedom, justice, coexistence, tolerance and respect to others will grow. In other words it is against the real revolutionary values which have been established after long struggle and controversy.
The forces that derail the revolution into the path of violence and revenge are inevitably infected by self inflation on the expense of the revolutionary ideas, and become impossible for them to recover the balance of the political, cultural and moral components of the revolution because of their relevance to the (alien component) of violence and aggression, because the latter will soon rebuild all the components in its favor and with its own terms so that the praise of force and violence becomes a necessary term for belonging to the revolution.
In such contest the force, adventure and violence become the revolutionary accepted qualities and its masters become the revolutionaries. History has records of similar cases and we are interested in the disastrous aftermath of the course of these revolutions, the inter-relations of the revolutionary elites , and how they all surrendered to the adventurer with (revolutionary) liquidations that resulted in putting the reins into the hands of the (sole leader.)
It is obvious that the revolution should deep-seat its principles by education, dialogue, understanding and respect of difference. The people who are exhausted by tyranny are often subjected to the tricks practiced by the deceptive revolutionary clamor, which settles at the end into a vacuum that is filled by, opportunists, utilizes and adventurers as well as all of those who use revolutionary boats so as to sail them to beaches different from the beach, where the revolution of the people must be anchored.
Yemeni revolution in its new edition
Yemeni Revolution experience in its new edition is a sample for revolutions that have been able to free itself of the trap of violence despite the availability of its conditions in terms of aggression and barbaric practices of the regime in a way that primarily aim at providing a climate for dragging everyone into civil war. All attempts made by the regime to drag the Revolution to violence was face by powers of integrity of the convictions of the majority of the revolutionaries with the necessity of adhering to peaceful revolution.
However, it must be noted here that the violence perpetrated by the regime had generated a reaction of force that was reflected in the discourse of some of those who belong to the Revolution, threatening of putting the revolution between the anvil and hammer of violence of two contradictory where each of them in a certain stage would have provided to the other the necessary conditions of violence and counter violence .
Since the regime was essentially the beneficiary of violence, it found its purpose in this dealing to justify the killings and repression that it had practiced against the peaceful revolution.
Perhaps the enthusiasm behind this discourse , as some, have been lured into a trap of the fiery speech as a reaction to the violence perpetrated by the regime, which emerged in its worst forms on (Dignity Friday) on March 18, 2011, which shook the regime and accordingly forced the President then provide the initiative of power transfer and request immunity from the U.S. ambassador.
Finally, perhaps some, who wore a revolutionary garment at a particular moment and for reasons unrelated to the Revolution, have performed their specified role carefully to create disturbance between the peaceful nature of the Revolution and this bustling speech which is unfairly attributed to it in order to lose its track, especially the aim of this latter type of speech has the purpose of arousing skepticism over the peaceful and political track of the Revolution. It is the track which embarrassed the regime, cornered it and revealed its repression after pulling out the coat with which it has been maneuvering in the path of peaceful actions, waiting for the rejection of the political forces of this path to gain satisfaction of the international powers, or their silence, at least in exercising violence and repression.
The political track could protect the Revolution by embodying its peaceful nature and revealing in turn the repressive nature of the regime. This had badly affected the international stance in putting pressure on the regime in order to go towards power transfer and change in accordance with the (GCC) plan and it complementary mechanism.
But the peaceful nature of the revolution and the adherence of the rebels before their historical responsibility, to get the revolution to its goals peacefully. The matter was not without difficulties, especially when the regime was practicing violence, killing and suppression, raising tension to the extent that made the talk about the political track a (disgrace). In such there emerged the addressing that rejects inciting and instigating speech which accuses the political track of betrayal, neglect and stealing the Revolution . it was the addressing that the regime needed whenever it is beleaguered to get out of its troubles.
It is sufficient to mention only two examples to prove superficial and demagogy of this mutual speech from both sides of pliers of extremism. The first came from Saleh loyalists who reject immunity saying that Saleh does not need such law but criminals need it. Simultaneously, they know that (GCC) plan which they signed along with the President included immunity article as a main condition to hand over power. When the law was drafted on the basis of achieving national reconciliation based on what so-called transition justice, they insisted on the immunity should be granted to Saleh, his family and those who have been working with him utterly.
The second, came from within the Revolution, rejects the immunity and demands the trial of Saleh as if he had become in their grip without saying something about the way of achieving that or implications of a war that may vanish Yemen which the Revolution may build in the case of victory.
The Revolution, which admits living within this pliers and works seriously in strategic vision to find a way out through which it reaches to its goal, would turn to audio phenomenon like this which some arrogance practice.
How scary is the loud voices that do not have a roof. Owners of these voices never settle in a case. At the end, they settle at the lap of the opponent whom they rebelled against. Anger and rage controlled them towards everything. They are possessed by folly which makes them see everything wrong as long as they do not top the scene and do not control it. So many revolutions have been suffering from this phenomenon, considering it the deceptive disability which is discovered after revolutions had been destroyed. Several revolutionary experiments recorded that this disability was the essential reason behind its deteriorations.
The question is: was there possibility of another way through which the Revolution wins, or another way for the regime through which it overcomes the Revolution?
This question is not hard to answer after one year of the Revolution, passing through different stations to prove that the Revolution succeeded in achieving its basic duty by fulfilling the most important phase. This phase can never be achieved without those sacrifices provided by Revolution youth.
Even if this operation had stopped temporarily at this level due to a number of factors which contributed to make the process of change ended up to two roads: whether to continue on peaceful choice, which has been the choice of the Revolution since beginning, or to respond to the regime's choice, the choice of violence and war, which the regime had prepared for. The regime did not want to bear the responsibility for that alone rather it tried to involve other powers from within the Revolution to respond to its choice through sliding towards a war, which the regime seems as if not responsible of.
The Revolution's forces had no choice but to adhere to peaceful choice which was the correct choice. The peaceful choice meant to go on political settlement way which would fulfill the process of change and transformation. Here, there should be a read accompanying this choice for objective reality surrounding the revolutionary process by brief review of a number of factors of affective especial value in this reality.
The first factor: it is important that we do not ignore the way in which the Revolution painted on the ground in light of the balance of power that has been exhausting people and country and everyday produces factors of state collapse without changing the nature of the regime even after disintegration which basically was not institutional regime capable of being affected by the collapse of its institutions and the stoppage of work.
The regime was based on individual influence of Saleh. He did not allow institutions he established in decorative manner to contend his absolute power given to him in the general course of ruling the country throughout these years. The collapse of the country will not be in the interest of the Revolution, we find that while the regime is no longer interested to disintegrate or break down the state. On the contrary, this what the regime sought to, because this disintegration would weaken the momentum of the revolution and so political and social forces would stay out of the Revolution ranks for the sake of other projects that harmonize in its goals with legitimate objectives. Therefore, it is not ruled out that he had encouraged this deconstruction trend in many ways, the matter which make it appears in a comfortable position when it relates to the element of time.
The second factor: years of conflicts and wars have been producing motley and conflicting forces, some of which found itself together in the same trench under the banner of the Revolution.
These conflicts endangered part of revolutionary struggle including armed confrontations witnessed by Jawf, Sa'ada, Hajja and other areas, towards outlets that absorbed some of that energy flowed by Revolution youth and established psychological wall after the Revolution opened squares across the country without barriers of all revolutionaries whatever their affiliations and inclinations are.
The third factor: Saleh's regime depended on exhausting people. In the time he hid behind arms which he stacked on expenses of people's food with full control of financial resources spending them on purposes which enabled him of controlling force balance on ground and that is by pouring money to loyalists. He has been exhausting people economically and in security. Oil resources of the country is running out, fuel is disappearing, queues of cooking gas reached more than a kilometer and in high prices (I remembered the epic of South Korea and Gas of poor Yemen) blackouts have been continuing for 23 hours a day and dismissal of thousands of employees and workers due to the stoppage of so many economical activities.
Fourth factor: It is the community that bore its responsibility towards the squares in the manner that gave the Revolution its public quality through providing it with its requirements such as food, medicine and protection. This started to stagger and fidget under the pressure of economic difficulty in addition to the feeling of retreat of revolution momentum that was created by demarking the Revolution in squares that stared to be isolated gradually from its encompass in a degree that the Revolution appeared to be blockaded unable to penetrate the surrounding barriers except through big sacrifices the most bloody of which was the endeavor to reach the Cabinet and so the massacre of the march of 18 September 2011for which the international community was silent, justifying its silence by that the youths "surpassed the permissible line". Here the danger of demarcation that the regime used as a justification to attack the peaceful marches.
Were there groups of people hurried to search solution for some problems in an independent manner from the big changing case? Lt's hear analysis of strange style such as that the victory of Revolution would harm the southern problem which resulted in dangerous session in national cohesion created by the Revolution, the matter that gave internal balance to the remnants of the regime.
Fifth factor: During that time, the revelations of dislocation heritage left by this regime started to appear in such manner through some groups hurried to find a solution for some problems independently from the great change issue. Lt's hear the strange analyses such as the victory of the Revolution would harm the southern problem resulted in dangerous secession in the national cohesion created by the Revolution that surpassed the barriers produced by the wrong policies of the regime the matter that enabled the remnants of the regime restore some of their internal balance. It sneaking through these gaps to rebuild its plans in order to attack the Revolution.
Sixth factor: The vertical secession happened to the regime the authority tried to utilize for its interest, endeavoring to visualize the situation as an internal conflict, trying to marketing it internally and externally. It employed it for justifying violence against the peaceful revolts, portraying the issue as if it was a confrontation between two armed parties, which was believed by many people that matter that resulted in enhancing the probability of breaking out of war between conflicting parts lead at the end to marginalize the Peaceful Revolution, surrounding it in squares that started to suffer from distress of all these flatters.
To say nothing about that the breaking of Al-hasaba War through attacking Al-Ahmar Family was needed to remove sights away from the Peaceful Revolution, giving it a military quality through dragging some parties into war. The title of that war was of a significance asserted the insistence of the regime on distorting the Revolution, portraying it as a conflict for authority with previous allies.
The seventh factor: Remaining of broad sector of intellectuals and elites out of revolutionary process, we do not mean those who stepped to the side of the regime (they are with tyranny), but we meant those who waited for the development of events and philosophized the matter from different angles that justified their stay out of the process and that is by building the revolutionary process in the social imagination as it is a conflict among the regime parties. They kept on blaming political parties as a part of this justifiable labor which they mastered to the extent of producing negative effects on revolutionary labor. Some of those worked to reduce parties and political and revolutionary forces in general compared to the President whom they described as the most sophisticated and most capable and intelligent and that he is of abilities and skills which let him overcome every impasse.
Some of them even exaggerated in underestimating the opposition forces describing them as no more than a game in the hands of outgoing President Saleh, and other words that exclude the scene in a surrealist character taking the form of the body any one may imagine, about the invincible man. This is similar to the tricks of Imam Ahmed that could create that legendary character among people.
The problem lies in the tyranny which brings forth a kind of culture glorifying such tyranny and thoughts that side with injustice and corruption and all other tyranny outcomes. Furthermore, some intellectuals turn into repressive tyrannical tools that are more dangerous than the torturers themselves, due to their role in taming the community to accept tyranny and its outcomes and to live with them first, then their role in rejecting the idea of resistance by making the people hopeless in defeating this tyranny or triumph over it.
Those intellectuals played the role of bringing despair to people of the victory of the revolution, after they had failed to convince people to reject the idea of resisting the tyranny and stay out of the whole process.
The 8th factor: The political line was hindered. The GCC Initiative presented the basic reference of the political line and was formulated to meet the choice of peaceful change in transferring power and preparing for radical democratic transmission, but the problem was that the sponsors did not adopt it properly and did not put pressure on the Yemeni parties especially on the regime to sign it. The regime was maneuvering in order not to sign the Initiative waiting for an opportunity to descend upon the scene by the war choice. Despite that all were convinced of the importance and necessity of change complexity, the regional situation was complicated interlocked.
What made it easy for the regime to escape any pressures put on it was the attack on the Presidency Mosque, which the regime exploited to escalate the military and media levels and to shuffle the cards. It is possible for us to see how they-sponsors of GCC Initiative- returned and threw the ball in the Yemenis’ court when they were at a loss of the regime’s tricks and delay, and stated more than one time that they support what the Yemenis would agree upon.
This thing dragged the Initiative into a deadlock more than one time, and this is a reply for those who said that the Initiative stormed the revolutionary line to change its direction. The Initiative was the choice of necessity in a critical turning point of Yemen life, with its long unstable way threatened by war in every turn this initiative headed to.
The oppositions forces bore the responsibility of going through this line out of awareness that it is the peaceful choice that would achieve goals of the revolution in change, democratic transformation and comprehensive development. here, we should record and monitor the most important stage in the history of the revolution which is the legendary steadfastness of the youth who resisted the violence against these squares especially in Taiz and Sana’a. It is the steadfastness of the youth confirming the revolution’s genuineness and ability to produce internal forces that enabled the revolution to continue and overcome the trap of violence and other obstacles facing their steadfastness.
On the other hand, the International Community started increasingly to be concerned with the situation in Yemen. But this concern was adapted to go in line with the GCC Initiative without any increase or decrease, on the basis that the international consensus the initiative received had made it their responsibility to provide appropriate conditions to implement this initiative and its operational mechanism, which had not yet been formulated.
The Yemeni parties stance on the Initiative was seen by the International Community as a standard indicating their willingness to adhere to the political line and peaceful solution, which made these parties ruled by this stance in many stations, even in the most critical moments due to the repression and violence by the regime, and further when this stance did not fit with the severe repression in many cases. However, one can not underestimate the efforts of the International Community to bring the political process to its final purpose.
Although the regime could prevent a decision to be made by Human Rights Council in Geneva in July 2011 regarding the formation of an international committee to investigate the crimes and violations committed by the regime in the light of the UN delegation’s visit in July 2011, under the pretext of not escalating the situation to ensure the implementation of the GCC Initiative, but efforts of the Envoy of UN Secretary General that time had resulted in a complete vision to power transfer.
During this period, the political action went side by side with the steadfastness of change squares. Then, it happened that Yemen’s case was referred to the UNSC to take their famous Resolution No. 2014 with an unanimous vote of all its members in November 2011, and with this the revolution reached a crucial stage and the International Community had no choice but to bear their responsibility leaving behind all accounts between these countries.
The 9th factor: The US had built their relationships with Saleh’s regime on the basis of a vital component for them which was fighting terrorism. And for this purpose the Americans established apparatuses with great and modern capacities and equipments exceeding Yemen in their activities to a wider environment. The Americans’ priority then was how to maintain those equipments in order not to end up in a non-guaranteed hands.
Fighting terrorism was the issue that concerned the US a lot, even after they found out the truth that Saleh’s regime was not an honest and reliable in fighting terrorism. The strategy of America in dealing with the Yemeni revolution based on two elements: the first was that they were convinced that Saleh was no longer capable to rule, and that change and power transfer had become an urgent need for the stability and advancement of Yemen. The second element was the style of change. They believed that the GCC Initiative was the best way to proceed to change process, the idea which was adopted by European Union countries.
It should be noted here that the absence and weakness of the revolutionary methods and ways organizing the peaceful revolutionary struggle had left negative impact in the course of the daily activities as well as the relationships between the revolution forces. Thus, these forces could not manage to control the conflicts with an approach harmonious with the revolutionary values that were multiplying and collided with this situation part of which was faced to factors that do not fit the state of internal harmony of peaceful revolution elements.
The most prominent expressions of that disagreement as I have mentioned was the loud speech which essence was no more than instigating to response to the violence the regime was preparing for in the form of a civil war to escape the implementation of the GCC Initiative they accepted earlier, which was based on the transfer of power and the peaceful change of the regime, and in return granting Saleh and his aides an immunity.
Here, it should be noted that this speech had impressed many of the youths, which speech was dominated by the language of mistrust of the political line, in a way that was not difficult to understand its real reasons, in the conditions of fragility of national cohesion between the political forces as well as the keenness attraction by some regional countries, some of which resorted to luring the youth with the logic of the armed revolution.
_ 3 _
Political scene is a wider circle of inflammatory rhetoric
In a scene that defeated the political logic to find bridges of understanding with the objections raised by this logic as instigation against the peaceful initiative, the complications come from the corner that displays the image of the general situation partially. That is, there are murderers and martyrs, without the completion of the scene in its integrated status embodied by the revolution that overthrew a regime that there is no one to believe that until recently could be overthrown whatever the sacrifices is.
This partial presentation of the sight in such a manner that makes the immunity on top of elements of the initiative with an intended truancy to the major issue represented in change and transfer of power, facilitated the task of undermining the political process by its opponents for reasons related to the sentimental situation that immersed in a scene of killing and blood and aggressive regime. It is an issue that cannot be ignored when assessing position, but when it comes to the future of the revolution, the question is in need to expand the circle of the scene to reach two most important results, namely:
Confirming the repressive and bloody nature of the regime. This recommends the demand if the Peaceful Revolution to overthrow it as it is regime lost popular legitimacy after resorting to violence, murder and bloodshed, and Second: Such regime in such level of repression cannot give in to change without sacrifices.
But the flip side of this speech was nothing more than an expression of a troubled project. It was angry speech prejudiced the powers that moved in the political process. Further, through analyzing this speech, we can find it unable to provide a clear and convincing answer to the substitute of the peaceful political option leading the process to impasse that does not ultimately lead except to war or to the collapse of the country.
In both cases, there is no beneficiary except the remnants of the regime adhering to the power at any cost because the only result is the dismantling of the country and establishing conflicting areas controlled by warlords.
If the remnants of the regime have what takes them to entrench in any of these areas, control and continue to survive through which, in addition to what will be imposed by the collapse of conditions for searching the protection of social entities here and there by force of arms, not to mention what has been created by the previous wars of the regime and its erroneous policies of fait accompli for the actual control on the ground of some powers. I wonder what will be got by the revolution of such a situation?
The revolution will be the biggest losers in this process, by which the regime bet in time, pushing the country towards collapse.
All the most obvious data point out that the country was heading for collapse.. The special nature of the political and social system pushed through sharp regional, sectarian and factional polarization, encouraged to dedicate this polarization on the basis of historical, cultural and political factors, provided thereof by conditions of tending towards confrontation with the national project of the revolution, directly or indirectly ..
That is, the regime partially defended himself in confronting the revolution to reproduce the political and social structure of the state based on the outputs of these polarizations represented in these contradictory cornerstones objectively with the national character of the revolution. These cornerstones, with what they have been provided of support and encouragement flout every effort seeks to resist and reject the dismantling of the state and its collapse out of base compatibles with their own project ..
The idea of «National Council» for example, as a project organized in which all political and social forces as a practical embodiment for resisting and surrounding the collapse of the state. However, the pity is that the tyranny of the dismantle was the stronger at the other that manifestations had emerged of that position in the justificatory formulas through which it rejected the project. They are the justifications that do not carry any indication that some of these powers had resolved their concerns to walk in the way of real change of the existing regime, that is, the course of the revolution ..
Their stance from the regime is nothing but a temporary opponent, i.e., to a level that has to be ready for the achievement of the dismantling project... As long as the joint interest is achieved for this interest of this project, it is necessary therefore for the joint opponent from now and then is to achieve the national project that refuses collapse and dismantling. Therefore, we find that some of these forces have worked vigorously to inflame the logic of war as the preferable path to this end ..
I even waited for it and bet it unfortunately. When things go the way that charted by the revolution from the beginning, a path of peaceful political way, they did not find except the language of treason to look like someone who lost his last horses bet. However, what a kind of bet that venture by the whole country against anonymous project!!
Anyhow, it is impossible to ignore this fact when responding to this complicated question. The reality is that the outline of the collapse and disintegration was impressing the remnants of the regime and some other powers. The power of such plan was able to confuse the path of revolution, trying to drag it to the violence by questioning their ability to win peacefully, and even tried to breakdown that in practice in many ways.
The revolution powers have realized that any revolution cannot succeed in a collapsed, of dismantled limbs country. Therefore they responded strongly to the option of counter-revolutionary forces aimed to ignite the war or freeze the situation in a state of equilibrium, in which dismantling plan, partial collapses and organized military seizure begins on some areas of the country by known or unknown armed forces.
This was the choice which the regime and its unpatriotic pillars had exerted efforts to achieve it, aiming at defeating the Revolution and its national project, especially after it knew that it had disintegrated, lost control and become no longer qualified to rule, let alone its knowledge that it can never beat the Revolution unless it resorts to (Samson Option) whether by civil war and the continuation of drying up the economic and financial resources. It also encouraged the degeneration projects, creating hotbeds of conflicts based on values of this project and supporting it with money and weapons and handing over areas to unknown armed people under strange banners.
The Revolution along with its forces in the most dangerous and decisive moments in Yemen's contemporary history had to maintain the cohesion of the country and not to allow its collapse, in addition to their continuation in completing the process of political change of the regime.
These two tasks are , of course, organically interrelated. The change process can never be viewed without keeping up the state from collapse.
Today, the wheel of change had moved in a surprising way when everyone had speculated that the revolution in Yemen will not end peacefully. We should be proud of the young generation who bore the burden of this victorious peaceful revolution. We rely on them to continue the change process and build a civil, Federal and Democratic state. It is the state of citizenship, freedom, justice and equality.
This generation should know that they are eligible to take Yemen to a new era that one day seemed impossible due sufferings of repeated setbacks to its dream, which had been carried by many pioneers and confiscated by corrupt elites.
It is qualified not only for being capable of offering sacrifices but by being able to pullout Yemen at a suitable moment from the jaws of tyranny, backwardness and a mysterious destination which it was heading to under a regime that failed to build a state that undertakes the guarantee of stability and development.
This generation, moreover, should take Yemen away from the ready-made ideologies and the illnesses, conflicts, convictions and losing bets of the former elites away from arrogance. They should benefit from the mistakes and open active channels with the era, sciences, knowledge and art.
This generation must adopt dialogue quietly and deeply leaving behind the rashness of elites which bequeathed unstable, confused situations that are not suitable for development and construction but conflicts, wars and disputes as well as tendencies of upper hand, recklessness and disregard to reason and science.
We Should expand the area of reading the scene instead of reducing it into small parts of (the martyrs and murderers), instead of its great theme of sacrifice in order that sacrifice should have great significance.
The martyrs who fell on the path of freedom are the ones who made the change. We should always remember that being sincere and loyal to their purpose is not only confined to demanding punishment of their killers, in a way that hides the great issue for which they were martyred and the value of the achievements that their sacrifice had achieved.
We should never deal with this matter as if those martyrs had been killed while they were on a picnic and that they didn't go out with a conviction to overthrow a deep rooted regime that had ruled for more than 3 decades which it had devoted for building regime for the succession of their sons. The only elements of governance that it used to possess were corruption, oppression and a sense of ownership.
The victory of this Revolution, as expressed by the writer Marwan Ghafoori , is the last opportunity offered by life to a country that used to miss opportunities.
I say the last opportunity because all indicators prove clearly that the chances of its development and improvement depend on this victory. Change in its current political rule opens the way before the last triumph in case everybody listens to rhythms of the historic opportunity away from bustling ego which used to disturb the beautiful melody sent by this opportunity from depths that are related to the authentic history of this country.
Failure means sinking in the nebula of disintegration, wars and backwardness. I do not think that anyone can read the matter differently in light of existing data. (Allah has full power and control over his affairs).